Email this article to a friend Fill out this form to email a link to this article to your friend.
Your Name:
Your Email:
Your Friend's Name:
Your Friend's Email:
Message to Friend:
Word Verification:	(This prevents web bots from submitting this form.)
Cancel
Privacy Notice: The information submitted in this form will not be used in any other manner than to deliver the email. We will not resale the information.

KennethL Gentry, Jr., makes evidence derived from exegetical data of the Apocalypsehis major focus in building a case for dating Revelation prior to thedestruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.1[1]Even though acknowledging that other advocates of either a Neronic andDomitianic date for Revelation's composition find no direct evidence within thebook for assigning a date, he proceeds to find "inherently suggestive andpositively compelling historical time-frame indicators in Revelation."[2]He uses the contemporary reign of the sixth king in 17:9-11 and the integrityof the temple and Jerusalem in 11:1-13 to exemplify arguments that are"virtually certain" proof of a date some time in the sixties.[3]

Beforea look at his exegesis of these two passages and several others, however,Gentry's general methodology deserves attention.

METHOD OF PRESENTATION

Hisfirst tactic is to create an environment of what may be called "virtualreality." This method is becoming very popular in this day ofcomputer-generated illusionary data. I call Gentry's use of it an experience in"back-to- the-future" manipulation.

Severalmonths ago, I went with one of my sons and two of my grandsons on the new"Back to the Future" experience on the lot of Universal Studios inBurbank. I call it an "experience" for the lack of a better term. Itwas not a "ride" such as at Magic Mountain or Disneyland because wenever left a small room in which we originally sat down. We were seated in anauto-type enclosure with a very complicated dashboard. We were enclosed onthree sides in the dark room with only a three-dimensional screen in front ofus. When our back-to-the-future experience began, all we could see was thescreen with its images portraying our "movement" through time andnear collisions with all kinds of objects including dinosaurs, cliffs, largebuildings, vehicles, and the like. To enforce this, our auto- like enclosurewas bumping around, pitching up and down, rolling side-to-side, and leaning insynchronization with what we saw on the screen. It was a very realisticexperience, but it was not real. All the apparent movement made my son sick athis stomach. I attribute this to his right-brain orientation. It did not botherme at all, however, because I rested in the reality that I was still in a smallroom enclosed in a larger building and had never left the room. In fact, Iexperienced the attraction again later in the day, but this time at the requestof and in the company of my two grandsons only.

Gentrylike others of the reconstructionist movement is a master in using words totake his readers back to the future, i.e., in creating virtual reality that hasand will render many incapable of distinguishing it from reality itself. Hedoes this by stating his correct view first,[4]then often following it up with a long list of writers to support that view.[5]This has the effect of blinding the reader on three sides so that he can seeonly what Gentry wants him to see in front of him. Only after the reader hasexperienced what he is intended to experience by way of positive evidence doesthe author turn to evaluate some of the weaknesses of that viewpoint. [6]By this time, the merits of other viewpoints have become lost in the shuffle.

Behindthis exegetical methodology lies a preunderstanding that controls the wholeprocess. In about the last thirty years it has become increasingly fashionableamong some evangelicals to factor the step of preunderstanding or hermeneuticalself-consciousness into the interpretive process, [7]but to others, such as myself, to do so confuses the picture by making what hastraditionally been known as application partially determinative of one'sunderstanding of the historical-grammatical meaning of Scripture. Gentry triesto shield his preunderstanding from view most of the time, but it shows itselfonce early in the book and then in the book's concluding remarks.[8]After quoting Ryrie's words about the inevitable misery that the future holdsfor the world, he writes, "If such is the case, why get involved?"[9]He associates cultural defeatism and retreatist pietism with assigning a latedate to Revelation and wants to date the book before A.D. 70 so as to haveBiblical support for the implementation of long-term Christian culturalprogress and domino.[10]

Thisprobably reflects his basic motivation for the early dating of Revelation: adesire for an undiluted rationale support hristia,2cal and politicalinvolvement He is looking for an escape from the tension between the culturalmandate given to Christians and a realization if the prophecy of Revelationdictates that the culture will inevitably go downhill despite the best effortsof God's people to reverse the trend. No one can deny that Christians are to begood citizens by doing everything they can to make this world a better place,but the fact remains that evil will eventually prevail until the end of historywhen Christ returns. This is apparently a paradox with which Gentry cannotlive, so his exegetical methodology moves in a direction that findsRevelation's prophecies of a decaying society fulfilled in the era up to andincluding the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

HERMENEUTICAL PATTERN

AsGentry weaves his case for Revelation's early date, the absence of a consistentset of hermeneutical principles is evident. It is most conspicuous in a numberof inconsistencies that emerge in different parts of the treatment. He does notinterpret the same passage in the same way, from place to place, or within thesame discussion differing principles take him in different directions regardinghis mode of interpretation.

Forinstance, he accepts the principle of the symbolic use of numbers, but only forlarge, rounded numbers such as 1,000, 144,000, and 200,000,000. Smallernumbers, such as seven, are quite literal.[11]

Againhe rejects the equation of "kings = kingdoms" in 17:10,[12]but in a later discussion of the Nero Redivivus myth in 17:11 he identifies one of the kings orheads of the beast in 17:10 as the Roman Empire revived under Vespasian.[13]The latter is part of his strained attempt to explain the healing of thebeast's death-wound.

Whendiscussing the 144,000, this author is uncertain at one point whether theyrepresent the saved of Jewish lineage or the church as a whole. [14]Yet just ten pages later they are definitely Christians of Jewish extraction,because he needs evidence to tie the fulfillment of Revelation to the land ofJudea.[15]This provides another example of his lack of objective hermeneutical principlesto guide interpretation.

Theforty-two months of 11:2 is the period of the Roman siege of Jerusalem fromearly Spring 67 till September 70, according to Gentry. [16]A bit earlier he finds John, even while he is writing the book, alreadyenmeshed in the great tribulation (1:9; 2:22), a period of equal length andapparently simultaneous with the Roman siege. [17]In a discussion of 13:5-7, however, he separates the Neronic persecution ofChristians which constituted "the great tribulation" (13:5-7) fromthe Roman siege of Jerusalem in both time and place, dating it from 64 to 68and locating it in the Roman province of Asia. [18]So which is it? Is John writing during "the great tribulation" of64-68 or the one of 67-70? Later still, he assigns 65 or early 66 as the dateof writing,[19] so Johnpredicted a forty-two month period of persecution (13:5) that was alreadypartially past when he wrote. This is indeed a puzzling picture.

Anotherpuzzling discussion concerns the raising of the beast from his death-wound. Atone point Gentry identifies Galba as the seventh king of 17:10, in strict compliancewith the consecutive reigns of Roman emperors. [20]Butsuddenly he skips Otho and Vitellius to get to Vespasian who is the eighth andshifts from counting kings with his identification of the healing of thebeast's death-wound as Rome's survival from its civil war in the late sixties. [21]Thisis enough to dash in pieces any effort to decipher a consistent pattern ofhermeneutics, because such is nonexistent.

Thisis enough to devote to preliminaries and generalities. The attention of theremainder of this essay will focus on individual passages, with specialattention to Gentry still, but with a few side glances at otherreconstructionists.

INDIVIDUAL PASSAGES

The Theme Verse

All,including Gentry and Chilton,[22]agree that the theme verse of Revelation is Rev. 1:7 "Behold, He comeswith clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and allthe families of the earth will mourn over Him." But these two theonomistsdo not refer this to the second coming of Christ. Rather they see it as referringto the coming of Christ in judgment upon Israel, so as to make the church thenew kingdom.[23] To reachthis conclusion, they must implement special proposals regarding "thosewho pierced Him," "the tribes of the earth," and "theland."

"Thosewho pierced Him." Blame for the piercing of Jesus falls squarely andsolely on the shoulders of the Jews, according to Gentry.[24]He cites a number of passages in the gospels, Acts, and Paul to prove thisresponsibility, but conspicuously omits from his list John 19:31 and Acts 4:27which involve the Romans and Gentiles in this horrible act.[25]This determines for him that the book's theme is coming of God's wrath againstthe Jews.[26]

Bylimiting the blame for Christ's crucifixion to the Jews, Gentry excludes fromthe scope of the theme verse any reference to the Romans whom he elsewhereacknowledges to be the chief persecutors of Christians.[27]He also includes the Romans elsewhere as objects of this "cloudcoming" of Christ, [28]andyet does not give the Romans a place in the theme verse of the book.

"Thetribes of the earth." Without evaluating any other possibility, Gentryassigns (phyl) the meaning"tribe" and makes it refer to the tribes of Israel.[29]This interpretation has merit because that is the meaning of the term in thesource passage Zech. 12:10 if. and in a parallel NT passage, John 19:31.[30]The problem with the way Gentry construes it, however, is that if this refersto Israel, it is a mourning of repentance, as in Zechariah, not a mourning ofdespair as he makes it.

For this to be amourning of despair as the context of Revelation requires (cf. 9:20-21; 16:9,11, 21), phyl must be taken in the sense of "family" and must referto peoples of all nations as it does so often in the Apocalypse (cf. 5:9; 7:9;11:9; 13:7; 14:6).[31]This is the only way to do justice to the worldwide scope of the book asrequired by such verses as 3:10, which even Gentry admits refers to the wholeRoman world. [32]The sense ofa mourning of despair throughout the whole earth is the sense Jesus attaches tothe words in His use of the Zech. 12:10 if. passage in Matt. 24:30.[33]

"Theland." The reconstructionists actually read "the tribes of theearth" to be "the tribes of the land," i.e., the land ofPalestine.[34] It is truethat (ge) can carry such arestricted meaning, but support in the context of its usage is necessary for itto mean this. The acknowledged worldwide scope of Revelation already citedrules out this localized meaning of the term in 1:7.

SoGentry strikes out on the three pitches which he himself has chosen in thetheme verse of Revelation. He also leaves other unanswered questions regardingthis alleged "cloud coming" in the sixties. He identifies the cloudcoming against the Jews as the judgment against Judea in 67-70.[35]That coming against the church was the persecution by the Romans from 64 to 68.[36]The cloud coming for Rome was her internal strife in 68-69[37].But nowhere does he tell what the promised deliverance of the church is (e.g.,3:11). It appears to be a question without a clear-cut answer as to how this"cloud coming" could be a promise of imminent deliverance for God'speople. All he can see in it is judgment against them and the"privilege" of being clearly distinguished from Judaism forever. Hefinds covenantal and redemptive import for Christianity in the collapse of theJewish order,[38] but thisfalls short of a personal appearance of Christ to take the faithful away fromtheir persecution.

The Sixth King

Asmentioned in the introduction above, one of the two internal indicators thatmake the early date "virtually certain" is the identity of the sixthking in 17:9_11.[39] Gentryfirst uses the "seven hills" of 17:9 to indicate that Rome or theRoman Empire is in view.[40]Then he concludes that the seven kings of 17:9 (Greek text; 17:10 in English)are seven consecutive Roman emperors, [41]beginningwith Julius Caesar (49-44 B.C.) and continuing with Augustus (31 B.C-A.D. 14),Tiberius (14-37), Gaius or Caligula (37-41), Claudius (41-54), Nero (54-68),Galba (68-69), Otho (69), Vitelius (69), Vespasian (69_79).[42]The sixth in this series is Nero, so because 17:10 says "one is," heconcludes that John must have written the book during Nero's reign. [43]

Gentryfaces four objections to his theory that the sixth king is Nero,[44]but except for the fourth one, to which we will return shortly, bypasses theexegetical crux of the issue. Regarding the seven hills, he assumes withoutconsideration of any contrary evidence that they tie the beast to the city ofRome, but is this a valid assumption? The formula introducing this explanation,"Here is the mind that has wisdom" (17:9a; cf. 13:18a), indicates aneed for special theological and symbolic discernment to comprehend it.Gentry's proposal requires only a basic knowledge of geography and numbers, nota special God-given wisdom. [45]Further,it is hard to see any connection between the topography of Rome and seven ofits emperors. [46]Vv. 9-10refer to the scope and nature of the beast's power, not to the physical layoutof a city. [47]No single historical city, particularly Rome, can meet all the characteristicsJohn speaks of in Revelation 17_18.[48]The added expression, "They are seven kings," seems to require thatan identification of the mountainsor hills be of a political rather than of a geographical nature. Strangest ofall, though, is Gentry's unfulfilled obligation to explain what a reference toRome is doing in the midst of a chapter dealing with Babylon, which he takes torepresent Jerusalem. [49]The best he can do is theorize that the harlot's riding on the beast is analliance between Jerusalem and Rome against Christianity. [50]To support the existence of such an alleged alliance, he cites Matt. 23:37 if.;John 19:16-16 [sic]; Acts 17:7, none of which support his theory. [51]Rome'sprolonged siege and destruction of Jerusalem hardly gives the impression of anyalliance.

Theharlot sits upon the seven mountains (17:9), just as she sits upon "manywaters" (17:1). Since the "many waters" are a symbol explainedin 17:15, analogy would dictate that the seven mountains are also symbolic andnot literal hills. [52]The very next clause in 17:9 explains the symbolism of the seven mountains:they are seven kings or kingdoms. As noted above, Gentry as part of his answerto the fourth objection to the Neronian identification rejects the equating ofkings with the kingdoms they rule, but later he incorporates such an equationinto his explanation of the identity of the eighth head. [53]

Besidesthe tenuous nature of Gentry's use of the seven hills, his conclusion that Nerois the sixth or "the one [who] is" also faces serious obstacles. Thegreatest obstacle is his need to begin counting "kings" with JuliusCaesar. He tries to defend this by citing several ancient sources, [54]but the fact is that Rome was a Republic, ruled by the First Triumvirate, inthe days of Julius Caesar and became a Principate under Augustus and theemperors that followed him. [55]Neither does Gentry attempt to explain the thirteen-year gap between JuliusCaesar's death and the beginning of Augustus' reign. They were not consecutiverulers as he makes them out to be. The exclusion of Julius Caesar makes Nerothe fifth instead of the sixth "king." Another good reason for notmaking Nero the sixth is that it eliminates the f1'ftiaking Galba the seventhand seeing the eighth as the revived Roman empire rather than an individualking. This scheme is fraught with hermeneutical difficulties.

Gentry'sfurther use of 666 to prove that the first beast of chap. 13 is Nero, headmits, is only corroborative and cannot stand alone, [56]sothe efficient course is to turn now to his second major item of internalevidence to prove an early date of writing.

The ContemporaryIntegrity of the Temple

Gentryfinds indisputable evidence in Rev. 11:1-2 that the temple was still standingand that the destruction of Jerusalem was still future when John wrote thebook. [57]Hegoes to great lengths to prove that it was the Herodian temple of Jesus' day bylocating it in Jerusalem, and to show that it was not intended to be a symbolicrepresentation of the church. [58]Yet he gives no attention to the possibility that this may be a future literaltemple.

Heis quite defensive of his hermeneutical methodology in handling these twoverses, a method that involves a mixture of figurative-symbolic andliteral-historical.[59]He takes the measuring to be representative of the preservation of theinnermost aspects, including the (naos), altar, and worshipers, and the casting out (ekbale) as indicative the destruction of the externalcourt of the temple complex. The former or inner spiritual idea speaks of thepreservation of God's new temple, the church, while the latter or materialtemple of the old covenant era will come to destruction. In other words, v. 1is figurative and v. 2 literal. In yet other terms, the (ton naon tou theou) and (to thysiastetion) are symbolic and (ten auln ten exOthen tounaou) is literal.

Gentryjustifies the radical switch in hermeneutical approaches by appealing toWalvoord and Mounce, whom he says combine literal and figurative in thispassage also.[60] He citesWalvoord's silence regarding John's literally climbing the walls of the templeto get his measurements and Mounce's reference to the necessity of a symbolicmixture in interpreting the passage. What Gentry does is drastically differentfrom these two, however. He wants and literal meaning for essentially the sameterminology For example, he assigns the term naos both a literal and a symbolic meaning inconsecutive verses. In fact, refers the temple and the altar to literalstructures earlier[61]and to the spiritual temple of the church a few pages later.[62]This compares to changing the rules in the middle of the game. Anyone can winthat way.

Hisresponse to objections to his interpretation of 11:1-2 includes an assigning ofa pre-70 date to Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians, though its usualdating is in the 90's. He does this because Clement speaks as though the templewere still standing. Then Gentry has a lengthy discussion of the silence of therest of the NT regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, [63]during which he apparently accepts dates prior to 70 for all four gospels,including the Gospel of John, and the rest of the NT canon.[64]This theory creates further problems for his case, which he does not deal withand so we will not either.

Gentrydoes not venture an explanation of how John, isolated on the Island of Patmosso many miles from Jerusalem, can visit the literal city to carry out hissymbolical task of measuring the temple. He seems oblivious to John's being ina prophetic trance (4:2) to receive this and other revelations in this visionalportion of the book. His task in 11:1-2 is the first of his assigned duties toperform following his recommissioning at the end of chap. 10 (10:11). So he is notto transport himself physically across the Mediterranean Sea to Judea, but"in spirit" he is already there.

Onecannot quarrel with the conclusion that John's visional responsibility ofmeasuring points in its fulfillment to a literal temple, but it is not theHerodian temple of Jesus' day. It is a future temple to be rebuilt beforeChrist's second advent (cf. Dan. 9:27; 12:11; Matt. 24:15; 2 Thess.2:4).'Ti1ideed will bi1iiial temple without symbolic meaning such as Gentryassigns. His idea that the temple and the altar of v. 1 represent the churchleaves no room to identify the worshipers in third verse His approach tosymbolism is inconsistent and se-'contradictory. This aspect of the descriptionas well as v. 2 shows that the entire description is on Jewish ground and isnot part Jewish and part Christian.[65]

John'smeasuring of the temple is clearly not for obtaining dimensions but for thesake of acquiring information necessary for his new prophetic task Thatinformation comes in the sequel to the command to measure and cast out, in thedescription of the two witnesses in 11:3-14.[66]The two witnesses in association with the sanctuary, the altar, and theworshipers enjoy God's favor (11:5-6, 11-12), but their Gentile foes who opposeand kill them eventually experience a devastating earthquake because of God'sdisfavor (11:13). So the measuring is an object lesson of how entities favoredby and opposed to God will fare during the period of Gentile oppression thatlies ahead during the period covered by the remainder of John's prophecies.

Temporal Expectation ofthe Author

Oneother temporal feature that Gentry magnifies is the emphasis of Revelation onthe nearness of Christ's coming (Rev. 1:1, 3, 19; 22:6, 7, 12, 20). He faultsthose who refer this to Christ's second advent, noting that the"shortly" or "soon" that characterizes the coming is hardlya suitable way to speak of the already 1900-year interval that separates thatcoming from the writing of Revelation. [67]His solution is to refer the book to the imminence of the events to come uponthe Jews, the church, and the Roman Empire during the decade of the sixties,culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.[68]

Atleast two flaws mar his theory. The first is that his placement of the coming ofChrist to the church antedates his chosen date for the writing of the book. Thecoming of Christ for the church is the Neronic persecution of A.D. 6468,[69]but John did not write the book until 65 or early 66.[70]This "coming" was not imminent; it was already in progress.

The other flaw is thatof setting time limitations on how long "soon" must be. If the NTmakes anything clear, it is that no one knows the day or hour of Christ'scoming (e.g., Matt. 24:42, 44; 25:13; Mark 13:32). That coming will be like a thiefin the night (Rev. 3:3) so as to catch everyone by surprise, but according toGentry's scheme, it will be quite predictable. Jesus' teaching about His comingoccurring in "this generation" (Matt. 24:34) is no exception to thisrule, [71]becauseHe made that statement in the same context of confessing ignorance as to thetime of His own coming.

Theteaching of Christ's imminent return is not about setting a time limit on whenHe will come. It is about teaching an attitude of expectancy that providesmotivation for a godly lifestyle. Paul expected Christ's return during hislifetime (1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:15, 17) and this was proper. Yet Paul didnot lay down strict guidelines that Christ had to come before he died.

ForGentry, "soon" means already (i.e., Christ's coming for the church),in two years (i.e., Christ's coming for the Jews), and in four years (i.e.,Christ's coming for the Roman Empire). This in itself illustrates that"soon" is a relative term with a good bit of elasticity. The Apocalypsecomputes time either relatively to the divine apprehension as here and in 22:10or absolutely in itself as long or short (8:1; 20:2). God is not limited by thetime constraints that are so binding on man (2 Pet. 3:8), so man cannot beimpatient in limiting the time span covered by "soon."[72]

A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUE

Gentry'sbook itemizes a number of other supposed supports for the early date, butadmits in most cases that

these are onlycorroborative of his main proofs and have no independent value. [73]Throughout most of the work he gives the impression that he has two criteria ofindependent value in dating the book, Nero as the sixth king of 17:10 and theexistence of the temple and Jerusalem contemporary to the writing of the book.Yet when he arrives near the end he speaks of the "wealth of internalconsiderations for an early date."[74]His wealth of considerations consists of only two, both of which have beenshown above to be useless in demonstrating his case.

Thisdiscussion of internal criteria for dating the book of Revelation would not becomplete without posing some questions that Gentry leaves untouched in hisbook.

(1)How is it that the "cloud-coming" of A.D. 70 involves no personalcoming of Christ (Matt 24:30; 26:64; Rev. 1:7; 2:5, 16, 25; 3:3, 11, 20; 16:15;22:7, 12, 20), but the "cloud-coming" at the end of history does(Acts 1:11; 1 Thess. 4:13 if.)?[75]In the first place, where did Christ distinguish between two such comings, andin the second place, where did He say that He would personally appear at oneand not at the other? The answer to both questions is nowhere. Such adistinguishing between two future comings is the product of adominion-theological distortion of NT teaching, not of sound exegeticalpractice.

(2)How could John dwell on the prosperity of the church in Laodicea when the cityhad been completely destroyed by an earthquake only five years earlier? Gentryresponds to this problem by suggesting that Laodicea's wealth was spiritual andnot material, by supposing the possibility of a quick rebuilding, and bytheorizing that the quake did not impact the sector of the city where theChristians were. [76] A carefulexegesis of 3:17, however, shows that Christians in the city thought theirmaterial prosperity was equivalent to spiritual prosperity, not that they werespiritually rich while materially poor. The possibility of a quick rebuildingis against the facts. The rebuilding effort was still in progress as late as 79when a gymnasium that was part of the rebuilding effort was completed. [77]Also an abrupt numismatic poverty marks this period in all the cities of theLycus district of which Laodicea was a part. This too illustrates the prolongedeffect of the destructive earthquake.[78]As for Gentry's theory that part of the city was spared the devastation thataffected the whole district, this is pure speculation that belies availablefact

(3)Did the ministry of John overlap that of Paul in the churches of Asia? Gentry'sreconstruction of the chronology of the period would require this. If Johnwrote in 65 or early 66, he must have been in Asia for at least five yearsprior to that to have unseated Paul as the authoritative apostle for the regionand to have gained the respect of Christians throughout the whole province. Hehad been there long enough to become a problem for Nero too, resulting in hisexile to Patmos some time after 64. Paul visited Ephesus at least once afterthis (A.D. 65), following his release from his first Roman imprisonment (1 Tim.1:3). Yet after leaving the city, he left Timothy in charge of the church andmade no reference to the presence of John the Apostle and his influence on thechurch. If John had been there and had taken charge, why would Paul return toAsia? The answer is that he would not have, but he did, so John had not yetarrived in Asia.

(4)When did John arrive in Asia? According to the best tradition, John was part ofa migration of Palestinian Christians from Palestine to the province of Asiajust before the outbreak of the Jewish rebellion in A.D. 66, so he did notarrive there before the late sixties. [79]ANeronic dating of the book would hardly have allowed time for him to settle inAsia, replace Paul as the respected leader of the Asian churches, and be exiledto Patmos before Nero's death in 68. Gentry does not respond to this problem,but his dating of the book in 65 or 66 renders its apostolic authorshipimpossible.

(5)What was the condition of the churches of Asia during the sixties, thatportrayed in Paul's epistles to Ephesians (A.D. 61), Colossians (A.D. 61), andTimothy (A.D. 65 and 67) or in John's seven messages of Revelation 2-3?Recognizing true apostles and prophets had become a problem in the latter(e.g., 2:2, 20), but the former

epistles give no inklingof this kind of a problem In Paul's epistles to this area, false teachingregardii1erson of Christ was a crucial issue (e.g., Col. 1:13-20)but not so inJohn's seven messages. A need in Paul's epistles was strong emphasis onChristian family roles (e.g., Eph. 5:22-6:9; Col. 3:18-4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1-2), butJohn's messages do not touch this subject at all. A prominent danger in John'smessages is the Nicolaitan heresy (2:6, 15), but Paul's epistles say nothingabout it. Differences of this type are almost limitless, the simple reason beingthat Paul's four epistles and John's seven messages belong to decades separatedby twenty years. Gentry's response to this problem is only superficial,[80]and therefore ineffective.

Ithas been impossible to deal with all the peculiar interpretations of dominiontheology in the Apocalypse, because the proposed topic was the internalevidence for dating the book. Probably when Gentry completes his forthcomingcommentary, The Divorce of Israel. A Commentary on Revelation, [81]further works of refutation will have to deal with such issues as Babylon asymbolic title for Jerusalem,[82]why the seven last plagues are not final,[83]why 19:11-16 is not the second coming of Christ to earth [84]why the state pictured in 21:9-22:5 is the church age and not the futureeternal state,[85] and thelike. This recently revived postmillennial outlook is very aggressive and willcontinue its efforts to win converts from among both premillennialists andamillennialists.

Meetingits challenge will call for patient exegesis of the separate texts, the kind ofexegesis that none of us has time for. Yet it is vital if the truth of the Wordof God is to prevail. May this be a call to all of us to a careful handling ofthe Scriptures in the face of this and many other threats that tend to disfigurethe face of Christian doctrine here at the end of the twentieth century. Thoughour efforts are feeble, may God help us to do a good job of what He has put ushere to do.

[1] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., BeforeJerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics,1989), pp. 113, 116,

[2] Ibid., p. 119.

[3] Ibid., pp. 118-19.

[4] E.g., ibid., pp. 153-54.

[5]E.g., 30-38, 168, 200, 296 n. 50.Many cited in these lists are not cited from primary sources.

[6] E.g., pp. 203-12.

[7] E.g., Craig A. Blaising,"Dispensationalism: The Search for Definition," in Dispensationalism,Israel and the Church, ed. by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1992), p. 30.

[8] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell,pp. 5 n. 12, 336-37.

[9] Ibid., p. 5 n. 12.

[10] Ibid., pp. 336-37.

[11] Ibid., pp. 162-163.

[12] Ibid., pp. 163-64.

[13]Ibid., pp. 310-16.

[14] Ibid., pp. 223-24.

[15]Ibid., p. 233.

[16] Ibid., pp. 250-53.

[17] Ibid., p. 234.

[18] Ibid., pp. 254-55.

[19] Ibid., p. 336.

[20] Ibid., pp. 158, 208.

[21] Ibid., pp. 310-16.

[22] Ibid., pp. 121-23; David Chilton,The Days of Vengeance (Fort Worth, Tex: Dominion, 1987), p. 64.

[23] Chilton, Days of Vengeance, p.64; gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, pp. 131-32.

[24] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell,pp. 123-27.

[25] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation1-7, An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), pp. 77-78. Even Chiltonallows a reference to Gentiles here (Days of Vengeance, p. 66).

[26] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell,p. 127.

[27] Ibid., p. 144.

[28] Ibid., pp. 143, 144.

[29] Ibid., pp. 127-28.

[30] William Lee, The Revelation ofSt. John," in The Holy Bible, ed. by F. C. Cook (London: John Murray,1881), 4:502; J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation (Philadelphia: Westminster, Pelican,1979), p. 67; G. V. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John theDivine, HNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), p. 18; James Moffatt, 'TheRevelation of St. John the Divine," in The Expositor's Greek Testament,ed. by W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 5:339-40; J. B.Smith, A Revelation of Jesus Christ (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald, 1961), p. 44.

[31] Alan F. Johnson,"Revelation,' in EBC, ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1981), 12:423.

[32] Gent, Before Jerusalem Fell, p.143 n. 27.

[33] For a fuller discussion of thisissue, see Thomas, Revelation 1-7, pp. 78-79.

[34] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell,pp. 128-29; Chilton, Days of Vengeance, p. 66.

[35] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell,p. 143.

[36] Ibid., p. 144.

[37] Ibid., pp. 144-45.

[38] Ibid., p. 144.

[39] Ibid., p. 146.

[40] Ibid., pp. 149-51.

[41] Ibid., pp. 151-52.

[42] Ibid., pp. 152-59.

[43] Ibid., p. 158.

[44] Ibid., pp. 159-64.

[45] Lee, "Revelation," 4:744;Johnson, "Revelation," 12:558.

[46] George E. Ladd, A Commentary onthe Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), p. 227.

[47] Martin Kiddle, The Revelation ofSt. John (New York: Harper, 1940), p. 349.

[48] Ladd, Revelation, p. 228.

[49]Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell,pp. 240-41 n. 26.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Lee, "Revelation,"4:744.

[53] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell,pp. 163-64, 310-16.

[54] Ibid., pp. 154-58.

[55] Collier's Encyclopedia, 20:180,190.

[56] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell,p. 198. "Fanciful" is the best term for describing some of Gentry'shermeneutical methodology to prove that 666 refers to Nero. He concludes thatthe beast who is Nero, like Satan himself, is a serpent because in English andin Greek (chxs)pronunciation of the number "sounds hauntingly like a serpent's chillinghiss" (p. 215). He adds that the middle number-letter even has theappearance of a writhing serpent: E (X) (ibid.). Another means of identifyingNero as the beast is his red beard that matches the color of the beast (17:3)(p. 217).

[57] Ibid., pp. 165-69.

[58] Ibid., pp. 169-74.

[59] Ibid., pp. 174-75.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Ibid.., pp. 169-70.

[62] Ibid.., p. 174.

[63] Ibid.., pp. 181-92.

[64] Ibid.., pp. 182-83.

[65] J A. Seiss, The Apocalypse, 3vols. (New York: Charles C. Cook, 1909), 2:159; Ladd, Revelation p. 152.

[66] Henry Alford, The GreekTestament, 4 vols. (London: Longmans, Green, 1903), 4:657.

[67] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell,pp. 133-37.

[68] Ibid., pp. 142-43.

[69] Ibid., p. 144.

[70] Ibid., p. 336.

[71] Contra ibid., p. 131.

[72] Cf. Thomas, Revelation 1-7, pp.54-56.

[73] E.g., Gentry, Before JerusalemFell, pp. 220-21, 246 n. 44.

[74] Ibid., p. 329.

[75] Cf. Ibid., pp. 122-23.

[76] Ibid., pp. 319-22.

[77] Colin J. Hemer, The Letters tothe Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, JSNT Sup 11 (Sheffield: U.of Sheffield, 1986), P. 194.

[78] Ibid.

[79] Thomas, Revelation 1-7, p. 22.

[80] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell,pp. 327-29.

[81] Ibid., p. 241 n. 26.

[82] Joseph R. Balyeat, Babylon, TheGreat City of Revelation (Sevierville, Tenn.: Onward, 1991), pp. 49-142.

[83] Chilton, Days of Vengeance, pp.383-84

[84] Ibid., pp. 481-89.

[85] Ibid., pp. 535-73.